Established in 2006, American Indians in Children's Literature (AICL) provides critical perspectives and analysis of indigenous peoples in children's and young adult books, the school curriculum, popular culture, and society. Scroll down for links to book reviews, Native media, and more.

Monday, January 30, 2012

STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO BOOK CENSORSHIP IN THE TUCSON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

[Note: A chronological list of links to AICL's coverage of the shut-down of
the Mexican American Studies Department at Tucson Unified School District is here. Information about the national Mexican American Studies Teach-in is here. The best source for daily updates out of Tucson is blogger David Abie Morales at Three Sonorans.]

________________________________________

At 8:00 AM, Mountain Standard Time, teachers who taught in the Mexican American Studies Department distributed the statement below at the White House Hispanic Community Action Summit in Tucson, Arizona (updated at 10:33 AM, CST held a press conference where they read aloud the statement below). It is signed by national educational associations such as the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) and the International Reading Association (IRA):

STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO BOOK CENSORSHIP

IN THE TUCSON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

January 30, 2012

The undersigned organizations are committed to
protecting free speech and intellectual freedom. We write to express our deep
concern about the removal of books used in the Mexican-American Studies Program
in the Tucson Unified School District. This occurred in response to a
determination by Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal
that the program “contained content promoting resentment toward a race or class
of people” and that “materials repeatedly reference white people as being
‘oppressors….’ in violation of state law.” The books have been boxed up and put
in storage; their fate and that of the program remain in limbo.

The First Amendment is grounded on the fundamental
rule that government officials, including public school administrators, may not
suppress “an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or
disagreeable.” School officials have a great deal of authority and discretion
to determine the curriculum, the subject of courses, and even methods of
instruction. They are restrained only by the constitutional obligation to base
their decisions on sound educational grounds, and not on ideology or political
or other personal beliefs. Thus, school officials are free to debate the merits
of any educational program, but that debate does not justify the wholesale
removal of books, especially when the avowed purpose is to suppress unwelcome
information and viewpoints.

School officials have insisted that the books
haven’t been banned because they are still available in school libraries. It is
irrelevant that the books are available in the library – or at the local
bookstore. School officials have removed materials from the curriculum,
effectively banning them from certain classes, solely because of their content
and the messages they contain. The effort to “prescribe what shall be orthodox
in politics, nationalism, [or] religion” is the essence of censorship, whether
the impact results in removal of all the books in a classroom, seven books, or
only one.

Students deserve an education that provides
exposure to a wide range of topics and perspectives, including those that are
controversial. Their education has already suffered from this political and
ideological donnybrook, which has caused massive disruption in their classes
and will wreak more havoc as teachers struggle to fill the educational vacuum
that has been created.

Book-banning and thought control are antithetical to
American law, tradition and values. In Justice Louis Brandeis's famous words,
the First Amendment is founded on the belief:

that freedom to think as you will and to speak as
you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth;
that, without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile; … that it
is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination …. Believing in the
power of reason as applied through public discussion, [the Framers] eschewed
silence coerced by law …. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing
majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly
should be guaranteed.

The First Amendment right to read, speak and think
freely applies to all, regardless of race, ethnicity, sex, religion, or
national origin. We strongly urge Arizona school officials to take this
commitment seriously and to return all books to classrooms and remove all
restrictions on ideas that can be addressed in class.

First Peoples listed AICL as one of the Top Five Native Blogs and Podcast to follow. School Library Journal's Elizabeth Burns featured AICL as her Blog of the Day on July 2, 2007, and in 2007, the ALA's Association for Library Service to Children invited Debbie to write a blog post for their site.

American Indian? Or, Native American? There is no agreement among Native peoples. Both are used. It is best to be specific. Example: Instead of "Debbie Reese, a Native American," say "Debbie Reese, a Nambe Pueblo Indian woman."